Really. Could google maps be wrong? It’s not international waters, but assuredly … ummmm… well, bizarre! Look at their TEAM (can you say photoshopped?). I can’t find direct connections to our friends at Excelsior Energy, but with an operation like this, it’s got to be there! Searching…

Remember AWA Goodhue’s office? And Secretary of State lets them get away with this?

September 12th, 2017

I found my notes!! On August 29, 2017, Alan and I went to the Goodhue County Courthouse for the GreenMark Solar v. Wacouta Township (Court Case No. 25-CV-17-1462) festivities — a Summary Judgment hearing.

That said, I’m also a big fan of solar, from way, way back when my father designed the solar on the Minnesota Zoo (that was later taken down, it was hot water! Not quite what was most needed, and they didn’t know much about solar back then).

Here’s the GreenMark Complaint — couldn’t find the Wacouta Answer or the cross-motions for Summary Judgment. The Wacouta Township website is years out of date — what’s up with that? (2014 is most current minutes, plus a notice of the May 2017 meeting about the solar project. ???)

The oral argument started with Greenmark. Some points (not all inclusive):

Focus on Minn. Stat. 394.33, Subd. 1, that the township decision violates Town Powers Act. It’s inconsistent with their zoning. They can enact more restrictive zoning, but they didn’t, township has no solar ordinance.2

Township ordinance is ambiguous. Frank’s Nursery case — if ambiguous, allow property owner to do what they want with the property.

Township argument:

Town Power Act does not restrict township actions. Bergen defines inconsistent, it’s not different.
Township Ordinance, Art. 3, Subd. 10, limits industrial uses that do not support agricultural. Solar is an industrial use. Twp. does allow solar in ag, BUT, it’s more restrictive, and it’s not inconsistnet.

The standard is whether down decision was rational, i.e., legally sufficient, supported by record.

Reasonable — inconsistent with agriculture, exported to the grid. CUP – exported, GreenMark takes issue with def of ag use, but see “Hubbard Broadcasting” denial of Conditional Use. Review is deferential. Mandamus (GreenMark’s action) review not to challenge discretionary decisions of local government.

Frank’s Nursery re: ambiguous ordinance, doesn’t require ordinance to be construed to support use. Court still needs to determine rationality.

Greenmark Rebuttal

Mandamus – this is about building permit, a ministerial act, not discretionary.

September 12th, 2017

The video isn’t posted yet, though last night’s Library Board meeting is. ??? Will post that video when it shows up.

I’d had a particular issue that I want addressed in Red Wing, that of ethics in government, particularly development of a culture of ethical behavior, where people would raise whether there are conflicts of interest voluntarily, and these potential conflicts are sufficient to recuse from discussion and votes on an agenda item/issue. What’s happened that I’ve observed in this town is that there’s no recognition or acknowledgement of conflicts, and it takes harsh exposure, press coverage, and resignation. It doesn’t need to be that way, especially in a small community where there are so many ties, conflicts are to be expected, and the City needs to learn how to handle them.

As a member of the Red Wing Citizens Assembly, I’m thinking more formally about public policy. As frequent participants in local issues, representing groups and members of the public, and as individual residents, Alan and I are particularly interested in Red Wing’s Code of Conduct. It’s a company town in many ways, with undue corporate influence.

Compared to that of the Public Utilities Commission where I practice (Minn. R. Ch. 7845), Red Wing’s Code of Conduct is inadequate. Under PUC Code, commissioners “shall behave in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the commission’s decision-making process,” and prohibits “… any action that might result in or create a conflict of interest or the appearance of impropriety… .” Red Wing’s Code gives too much wiggle room.

Remember removal of Mayor Dennis Egan? Why was resignation even a question given the direct conflict of interest and sand issues on the city agenda at the time?

How many City Council members are financially connected to Xcel Energy, as employee, contractor or with business ties? Xcel matters are regularly before the council, i.e., LabUSA “ash mining” (Full disclosure: I represented in limited scope neighbors challenging that project), nuclear issues, utility personal property tax revenue, and the city’s legislative agenda. How does the city balance Red Wing’s interests with Xcel’s interests?

3M/Capitol Safety agreed to create 40 new jobs in exchange for a $500,000 state MIF Loan and $284,677, 100 percent city tax abatement, for the new building. 3M didn’t comply by the deadline, nor within the three-month grace period, and now they’re six months overdue. The public is paying over $19,000 per job, Red Wing’s share over $7,000 per job. The council granted an extension without penalty, with no disclosure of how many jobs 3M fell short. 3M is moving jobs around — why not to Red Wing? Shouldn’t tax be assessed during noncompliance, not abated? An “extension fee” of at least $19,000 per job not created by the deadline? How is extension, with no consequence, in the public interest?

These are just a few examples. A few thoughts for improvement:

• The Red Wing Code of Conduct should require full disclosure of employment and contracting ties, in campaign information and city website biography. For each agenda item with a potential conflict, council and commission members should be queried via roll call about conflicts and interests with their response on the record.

• The administrator’s council packet should review for each agenda item the “city interest,” “applicant interest” and “public interest” for consideration.

• The Code of Conduct should require full disclosure and recusal from discussion and decision of any council or commission member who is employee or contractor or has business dealings with a party to an agenda item.

• The City Council needs education on fiduciary responsibility, protection of city resources and public versus private interest.

Julie Jorgensen (Julie Jorgensen CV ) was a Chief co-conspirator in the Excelsior Energy Mesaba Project, thankfully now virtually defunct (discounting its zombie qualities. For more information go to www.legalectric.org and search “Excelsior Energy” or “Mesaba Project” or “Julie Jorgensen” or “Tom Micheletti” or “boondoggle” or “coal gasification” or “carbon capture” or “sequestration” or “IRRRB” or just “IRR” or “Iron Range Resources” or “Renewable Development Fund” and of course go to the Citizens Against the Mesaba Project www.camp-site.info and settle in for a good read. And from a little over a year ago — zillow.com says it sold, but who knows the real story:

And this on the money they sucked out of the IRRB… how much has been written off? And then there’s the state’s “Renewable Development Fund” Again! Legislative Auditor on IRRRB! April 19th, 2015

And Dennis Egan, he’s front man on solar projects HERE? In Red Wing??? Well, for sure he’s no longer ED of Minnesota Industrial Sand Council (that’s a google cache, I got a 404, “the site is crashed and should be repaired.” It might be different by the time you see this, I’ll check tomorrow).

October 25th, 2013

And Jordan Sands, Unimin, etc., were putting out a lot of dough and a lot of time in their multiple representatives at the EQB meeting in Mankato at the Blue Earth County Library. Coming it, it looked well attended. But after a look around, it was apparent that at least half were industry toadies, like my buddy Dennis Egan:

On the other hand, several direct neighbors of the recently permitted Jordan Sands project, and a township official were there and spoke eloquently of their concerns. Scott County’s environmental crew (3) was there and told of their silica sand mine permitting experience.

I was handing out flyers to help people put in Comments on point about the statutory Standards and Criteria, specific ones that might be meaningful and might be taken into account — it’s hard to get people focused. But my ink jet ran out so I only had a handful. Here it is:

Here’s a chart to give people a format and idea how to submit comments — for this exercise, we need to file specific ideas for particular standard/criteria (in the middle column), and it’s very helpful to list whatever supporting documentation or authority you have for this criteria (right hand column), such as a local ordinance, or health studies:

I’m concerned about the focus on SE Minnesota, evidenced by the statutory language, and listening to the words used by the toady from Unimin, that “SE IS UNIQUE” and so it is special, and implying that an open door along the Minnesota River is just fine… NOT! Earth to Mars, frac sand mining is NOT unique to SE Minnesota. Here’s the map:

and from the DNR:

Think about where the major spill has been — INTO THE FEDERALLY PROTECTED WILD & SCENIC ST. CROIX RIVER!! Not even close to SE Minnesota. Where did they start up a processing/transport facility with no permits? Harris, MN (is Loren Jennings involved in this???).

And that much is clear from the many who did show up on a Friday afternoon in Mankato, by the permits issued already, Jordan Sands in Mankato, and as addressed by the Scott County environmental guy and other staff people who had just completed an intense permitting process there. Scott (Frenchette?), Scott County, raised a few state statutes, such as Minn. Stat. 103H.01 focused on ground water degradation, 116D.04, Subd. 6 (you all recognize MEPA by now, EH?), 103I and Minn. R. 7060 regarding protection of ground water. He asked about these statutes, all related to state permits, and rhetorically wondered what a local government is to do, is there protection offered in these statutes?